Over the past couple of weeks, most of the drive-by media's attention has been focused on events in Libya and the American responses to it. For a quick recap --

Christopher Stevens, an American diplomat assigned to Libya, and some others in the consulate were violently attacked without warning and ended up dead...on 9/11.

Ignoring the significance of the date, the Obama administration acted curiously: denying any possible connection to terror, and stonewalling with a pre-programmed chorus of disgust over a low-budget film (I've only just seen snippets on YouTube, and it made the movies spoofed on Mystery Science Theater 3000 seem like Cary Grant) which supposedly set the Arab Street ablaze.

Over the past week or so, disturbing cracks began appearing in this story, such as the fact that one of those in the consulate was actually communicating with other people away from the scene when the attack began, and he said there was no riot; nothing, in fact, but the security guards taking pictures. (This made him alarmed enough that he wrote "if we are still alive tonight..." or similar). If this were not enough, it came out that the facility was not guarded by US marines, but by local security: who were the ones casing the joint. And it came out that the policy of having no Marines, and having a "no loaded weapons" policy, came straight from the top, from Secretary of State Lady Macbeth. Oh, and it also came out that the Libyan authorities had notified our government about the possibility of the place being attacked, several days before, only to be ignored. And there's that little matter of Stevens having been brutalized and raped before being killed. Oh, and it came out that one of the ringleaders of the attack was someone who had been imprisoned in Guantanamo -- I guess this puts paid to the idea (probably from some Ivy League educated homosexual from the State Department) that "treating the terrorists humanely would yield tremendous PR dividends for us. (Come on, Democrats lie through their teeth all the time for petty advantage, or just to keep in practice -- such as Harry Reid (Cadaver-NV) lying about Mitt Romney's tax returns -- so why do Dems assume Thrid World terrorists wouldn't lie as well? And yet the first reaction to the embassy attack from Lady Macbeth was one of naive surprise --"How could they *do* this to us? We *liberated* that town!" So much for realpolitik.)

So the current thinking is that well, maybe the spin was designed to deflect attention from the abysmal failings of the Administration, in not guarding the facilities, not listening to warnings, and the like.

But there are a couple of other things.

First, notice that since the event, both the President and Secretary Lady Macbeth have gone onto massive apology tours: not to the US public (you know, since it was our ambassador killed, the first one killed in 33 years), but to the Arab Street, including spending $70,000 for public service ads in Pakistan. And sending the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to lean on a Florida minister supportive of the films; and the midnight raid and "taking into custody" of the film-maker behind the clip. (What First Amendment?)

The response? More riots, more violence, and stiffer demands for even more silencing of criticism of Islam: there is even talk that Obama will throw Christianity under the bus at an upcoming U.N. conference. ("For I will stand with them, should the political winds shift in an ugly direction" is chillingly misleading: nobody suspected he meant that the ugly winds would be a firestorm of hate directed at Christendom and the West by a nascent Caliphate. And this is only strengthened by the rumors that Obama is negotiating with Egypt to release the blind sheik who was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, and also considering the release of 1/3 of the terrorists in Guantanamo...not to mention the recent abortive effort to remove Israel and God from the DNC Party Platform.)

Coupled with this, is a veritable pogrom against Christians and Jews in portions of the Muslim-dominated world; see for example this gruesome video of a man literally crucified by Islamists in Yemen. (WARNING: GRAPHIC!)

Or, for you animal-rights activists, how about this photo of Nigerian Muslims crucifying a cat (WARNING: GRAPHIC!) to protest this film.

Which brings us to another development, speaking of crucifixion.

The infamous hate crime called Piss Christ by Andres Serrano is being re-exhibited in New York. It is simply, a photograph of a crucifix immersed in a jar of Serrano's urine.

This is simply low-hanging fruit. Remember the last time Christians got offended en masse? Yes, that's right. They went out and bought chicken sandwiches! And the person who was most hurt was a female teller at a drive through window being excoriated by some smug prick berating her while asking for a free glass of water, and posting his antics on YouTube.

No embassies burnt, no consuls raped and murdered, no crucifixions. (See The Onion for an OBSCENE Not Suitable For Work but powerful illustration of this principle.)

Which brings up another point. Go look at the film mentioned earlier, of the dead guy crucified in Yemen.

*That* is ugly. *That* is torture and death and intolerance and hate.

It is also what Serrano made fun of -- the death agony of an innocent man, dropped into a jar of urine and given the mocking title "Piss Christ."

So I've got a challenge.

No, not the obvious. Everybody knows the Muslims would riot and kill people: even liberals know this instinctively, after the *original* 9-11.

Instead, I have a series of tests, for anyone who is interested.

First, make a photo of that guy in Yemen hanging dead on the cross. See if you can get Federal tax dollars for putting that in a jar of urine, and selling it as art. Call it "Piss Christians."

Second -- that doesn't get the point home? Get one of those Obama "Hope" posters and put it in a jar of urine. Don't call it "Piss Obama" or it's a hate crime, you racist. Call it "Piss Hope" or "Piss Change" to illustrate how little has really changed since Obama took office. See if you can get funding for that.

Or do you think Homeland Security and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will arrest you before you can say "Hopey-Changey" ?

And for the last -- let's recall the original "Piss Christ" -- Serrano himself claimed that the work was not meant to be derogatory of Christ, but simply to record how far organized Christianity had fallen since the days of the founder. Let's take him at his word for it, and I propose as a thought experiment, the following comparison.

Let us make the closest analogy we can to Christ.

The person whose picture goes into the jar of urine must be

a) a religious leader

b) someone who preached non-violence

c) a member of a minority group oppressed by another race (Jesus was Jewish and Judea was under military occupation by the Romans)

d) someone killed violently by those fearful of the change he brought

e) recall the Yemeni crucifixion: Jesus on the cross was *dying*.

What if someone put a picture of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. bleeding to death on that porch, and put *that* in a jar of urine?

There, are you *pissed off* yet?

Now you know how the Christians feel about "Piss Christ" -- because you dare put the Son of God, dying in agony (ever wonder where the phrase "excruciating pain" comes from?) into a jar of urine, but you won't do it to a Christian minister, because he's a liberal icon.

Oh, and maybe -- just maybe -- the liberals could try apologizing to the Christians just as much as they've been apologizing to the jihadists.(*)

There is a dimension of this that not many have commented on, and that is the willful disregard for human life implicit in the fabricated rationale -- so insistently and laughably propounded -- now as thoroughly demolished as Mary Mapes/Dan Rather's 60-minutes TANG Hoax. But no journalists were murdered in that demolition, although two careers were quite deservedly ended, they did it to themselves. Poetic Justice. Not so, in the instant case.

I'm referring to the transparently preposterous claim that spontaneous demonstrators (even in as twisted a place as Libya) show up with automatic weapons, explosives, and rocket propelled grenades, and, upon having breached the safe-house security (such as it was) proceeded directly to the intelligence documents ... all because of a poorly made YouTube video.

Yes, our President, Secretary of State, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and numerous other buffoons strutted confidently to the stage to hold forth repeatedly about this hateful abuse of the First Amendment, and their side-splitting -- yet remarkably earnest protestations -- were great fun. It's always great fun watching liars tell ridiculously skimpy lies, especially when they're convinced their cleverness, their panache, their sheer superiority has suckered you in. Great fun.

Until somebody gets killed.

Because that's exactly what happened. As flimsy a pretext as the initial excuse was, at some point, the excuse itself took on a life of its own. At some point, Islamic Rage Boy again reared his ugly head, destroyed millions of dollars in property, stole whatever was not nailed down, terrorized peaceful people across the world, and in gentle Pakistan, 17 people got killed.

So, let's review exactly how darkly cynical this episode is. Let me use a better word that will no doubt give the intellectuals at Cambridge on the Potomac and the worthies in the US press the vapors, but it is the appropriate word. Let us review, in bullet points, exactly how diabolical the actions of 0bama's minions, flunkies, and stooges have been. And let's keep in mind that none of this would have been possible had the administration not believed -- with complete justification -- that its enablers in the collaborationist press would swallow their ridiculous story hook, line, and sinker. Which they did.

The 0bama administration received word somewhere in the neighborhood of 72 hours before the event that a US Embassy or embassies in the Mid-East would be attacked, on, of all days, 9/11.

The intelligence was regarded as specific and actionable, and we know from leaked diplomatic cables that the State Department warned some of its personnel.

But it made no effort to tighten security. No Effort. On Nine F***ing Eleven.

After the attack, the administration claimed they were the result of spontaneous demonstrations.

After the attack, the administration -- in direct answer to a question -- claimed private and in-country security was not used. "Absolutely not."

After the attack, the administration said this was not a terrorist attack.

After the attack, the administration said it was not planned.

After the attack, in a shameful attempt to cover its own criminal negligence, the administration claimed the whole calamity was the result of an anti-Muslim movie.

This silly crap was repeated by every administration and State Department mouthpiece for nearly a week.

Since then, we've learned that no aspect of the administration's story was true:

No "demonstration," spontaneous or otherwise, preceded the attack

The attack was planned

The attack was a terrorist attack, and at least one of the actors is a former Al Qaeda Gitmo detainee.

There was specific, actionable intelligence that it was coming

Private security was used

There really wasn't even a movie, just a self-produced Internet Video

In its own words, the administration has now said, "we are not aware of any other details which need to be corrected as of this time." One must interpret that pronouncement according to one's capacity.

So, it was all a lie. Every word, including, probably, as Dorothy Parker once said "'a', 'an', and 'the.'"

In propagating this lie, whose sole purpose was to disguise the fact that its incompetence got an American Ambassador and his bodyguards murdered, and exposed and endangered US officers and intelligence assets in the region, here's what else the 0bama administration did:

Outed the filmmaker, exposing him and his family to the crazed followers of the Religion of PeaceTM apparently for the very serious crime of exercising the First Amendment Rights that all US Persons enjoy

Exposed thousands or hundreds of thousands of Coptic Christians -- already in a precarious position in Egypt -- to repression or murderous reprisals

By constantly repeating the lie, kept the story alive, so that the film eventually did inflame the Arab Street

Further eroded the already spectacularly pathetic credibility of the US media, who could not seem to get its hands on the dispatches of our own State Department (or even manage to reprint those dispatches after they'd appeared in British Media for several days.)

Actually made the White House Press Corps look even stupider than the rest of Press (I know, I know, it sounds impossible) as they sat in dutiful credulity day after day, swallowing the biggest sh!t sandwich fed to a roomful of gullible dupes since the Soviet Union dissolved with not so much as a peep of skepticism.

And then, because the White House wouldn't let the story die, the riots started, and people got killed.

The sidebar: at the start of the crisis, the US Embassy in Cairo denounced the First Amendment, and those who want to "hurt the feelings of Muslims," and when, in one of the brightest moments of his campaign, Mr. Romney pointed out that no American ought to apologize for the Bill of Rights, he was rewarded with scorn by the chattering monkeys in the collaborationist press cage, primates (allegedly) who owe their living to the First Amendment.

The fitting conclusion: 0bama will go to the UN and grovel to the murdering bastards yet again, and the monkeys will hammer randomly on their typewriters and eventually produce stories about his "wonderful message of reconciliation, peace, and hope."

We should insist that if Islaam needs to be protected from being offended, we require Islaamists to protect the dignity of Christianity and the Savior Jesus Christ. If they enact laws like that, we will reciprocate.....until then, “the Prophet Mohammad” is a turd.

12
posted on 09/23/2012 4:46:33 AM PDT
by trebb
("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)

(By the way, I figured out where the phrase "suffocated" came from. Remember Hillary has experience lying to cover up sexual assault, if Juanita B. is to be believed; add in a dash of Hillary's account of first learning about Monica Lewinsky -- "gasping for air, I could hardly breathe" -- and you have it.)

Cheers!

13
posted on 09/23/2012 5:17:04 AM PDT
by grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

Not one jackass from Hollywood, ACLU, Leftwing Media, Congress spoke out against the official denigration of the 1st Amendment. Except for a few members of Congress, all remain still silent today regarding the highly publicized assault US officials made against the 1st Amendment as a response to placating the Country’s enemies.

The Marxist regime in power seems interested in working with the International community in the destruction of at least the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

15
posted on 09/23/2012 5:45:24 AM PDT
by Gene Eric
(Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)

Over the past couple of weeks, most of the drive-by media's attention has been focused on events in Libya and the American responses to it. For a quick recap --

Christopher Stevens, an American diplomat assigned to Libya, and some others in the consulate were violently attacked without warning and ended up dead...on 9/11.

Ignoring the significance of the date, the Obama administration acted curiously: denying any possible connection to terror, and stonewalling with a pre-programmed chorus of disgust over a low-budget film

[snip]

Over the past week or so, disturbing cracks began appearing in this story, such as the fact that one of those in the consulate was actually communicating with other people away from the scene when the attack began, and he said there was no riot; nothing, in fact, but the security guards taking pictures. (This made him alarmed enough that he wrote "if we are still alive tonight..." or similar).

If this were not enough, it came out that the facility was not guarded by US marines, but by local security: who were the ones casing the joint. And it came out that the policy of having no Marines, and having a "no loaded weapons" policy, came straight from the top, from Secretary of State Lady Macbeth.

Oh, and it also came out that the Libyan authorities had notified our government about the possibility of the place being attacked, several days before, only to be ignored. And there's that matter of Stevens having been brutalized and raped before being killed.

Oh, and it came out that one of the ringleaders of the attack was someone who had been imprisoned in Guantanamo -- I guess this puts paid to the idea (probably from some Ivy League educated homosexual from the State Department) that "treating the terrorists humanely would yield tremendous PR dividends for us.

(Come on, Democrats lie through their teeth all the time for petty advantage, or just to keep in practice -- such as Harry Reid (Cadaver-NV) lying about Mitt Romney's tax returns -- so why do Dems assume Third World terrorists wouldn't lie as well?

And yet the first reaction to the embassy attack from Lady Macbeth was one of naive surprise --"How could they *do* this to us? We *liberated* that town!" So much for realpolitik.)

So the current thinking is that well, maybe the spin was designed to deflect attention from the abysmal failings of the Administration, in not guarding the facilities, not listening to warnings, and the like.

But there are a couple of other things.

First, notice that since the event, both the President and Secretary Lady Macbeth have gone onto massive apology tours:

not to the US public (you know, since it was our ambassador killed, the first one killed in 33 years), but to the Arab Street, including spending $70,000 for public service ads in Pakistan. And sending the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to lean on a Florida minister supportive of the films; and the midnight raid and "taking into custody" of the film-maker behind the clip. (What First Amendment?)

The response?

More riots, more violence, and stiffer demands for even more silencing of criticism of Islam: there is even talk that Obama will throw Christianity under the bus at an upcoming U.N. conference. ("For I will stand with them, should the political winds shift in an ugly direction" is chillingly misleading: nobody suspected he meant that the ugly winds would be a firestorm of hate directed at Christendom and the West by a nascent Caliphate. -- And this is only strengthened by the rumors that Obama is negotiating with Egypt to release the blind sheik who was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, and also considering the release of 1/3 of the terrorists in Guantanamo...not to mention the recent abortive effort to remove Israel and God from the DNC Party Platform.)

Im thinking its time for someone to sneak a piss mohammed next to the piss Christ.

Then there will be muzzy outrage, riots, a bounty on his head, he'd be called a racist and be brought up on hate crimes and his home would be surrounded by armored trucks, his dog shot and he'd be hauled off by some creepy guys in head to toe kevlar. Yes, the msm would ignore the double standard, publish his facebook, photoshop him into a skin head and leak his FR name.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.